I've seen some discussions here lately about personal freedoms. Here's one that was a big difference between the UK and US, but now is becoming less of a difference and more of a common ground.

Years ago I read all about the UK and their excessive use of cameras, and excessive number of "per capita" cameras...

Now, the US (at least in my state (NY)) is following suit. We have cameras everywhere. Some are just "police" cameras and are in bad areas and monitored by police personnel at all times. Others are "red-light" cameras, and take a snapshot as anyone goes through the intersection after the light turns, and others are simply "traffic" cameras, which are used to monitor traffic conditions and adjust the new "live" sign system on our highways.

The argument here goes something like this:
Side A:) This is an invasion of privacy, watching people without any probable cause to be doing so.
Side B:) If you are not doing anything wrong, what are you worried about? These cameras keep people on their best behavior and benefit all of us.

(Personally, this is one topic I have not been able to come to a decision about in my own mind. I have very mixed feelings. I guess I feel IF the cameras are only being used to go after active law breakers then OK...
But IF they start to use the technology to fine/ticket everyone into the poor house, then it constitutes as an infraction of freedom. (I.e. two cameras; one at point "a" and one at point "b" could be used to deduce that you were speeding from point "a" to point "b", but I feel unless you were actually spotted by Radar speeding, that using technology to make assumptions and ticket you is a definite breach of privacy))

I am interested in seeing how some of our friends across the pond feel about the big-brother situation with the cameras, and likewise I'm interested to hear some on our side sound-off about this modern phenomena of cameras in the US.

With all the cuts in government, these cameras have not been one of em around here. I suspect that is because they pay for themselves and then produce a profit rather quickly...-Dave#2

Until they brought in the new point to point cameras, I was pretty safe in that I knew where they all were, including the fools in blue who always used the same spots for the radar guns.

However, I do feel that many local authorities are using them as cash-cows. A good example is the B road from Market Harborough, through all the little villages to Melton Mowbray. That road is just too dangerous to speed as its contantly twisting & turning, yet this morning, after not travelling that road for the past 6 years, now have several speed cameras: -

Just cannot see any point to them, except as a blatant cash cow. Most parts of that road will force you to do 40mph or less, there is just no way to do higher speeds, & in some places, even 40mph is too high a speed.

As a law abiding citizen I have no problem with cameras. It seems to me the people who complain about them have something to hide. Motorists seem to be the biggest complainers, usually just after being caught doing something wrong, muttering about extra tax on motoring. Well in here in the UK there are signs telling what the speed limit is, (except for for 30mph limit on lit roads), there signs telling there are cameras, speed cameras are in open and painted yellow so you can see them, there are maps telling you where the permanent cameras are, Sat Nav tells you there are cameras there, so lets call it a tax - a tax on stupidity..

I dont know if I like it, but I dont see an invasion of privacy if the cameras are pointing to public places...
If watching someone walking/riding in the street were an invasion to their privacy then you shouldnt be allowed to have windows facing the streets... (or worst, you should use blind glasses when you were outside of your house)

TBH, the only place in which I feel that I have real privacy is my own bathroom, but only If Ive locked the door and turned on the radio at a high volume ... ;D

If there was a prohibition on more than one copy existing and a requirement for destruction after 30 days, with some teeth, say life no parole for violation, then perhaps it might be permissible. But the FBI/NSA/CIA would never agree to such a reasonable limit. It is important to them to build multi-decade dossiers on "dissidents" or Nixon style enemy lists.

If Ive locked the door and turned on the radio at a high volume ... ;D

But it is easy to subtract a radio from the sound recording as they know exactly what was broadcast. (Was a lot harder before computer signal processing.)

Your right... I'll have to untune it so it produces just noise... LOL

EDIT: Im fried, modern receivers shut off the sound when there is no carrier detected :(

(Time to break out the shortwave and turn the squelch down.)

Horacio, you brought up a great point in your first post. These cameras are in public places, and what right to privacy can anyone expect to have when they are not in their own home? Now, if they start pointing cameras in windows or using future technology to peer into peoples homes, that's a line I never want to see crossed.

Also, Luigi mentioned that the cameras across the pond are well marked.
In the US, only some of them are well marked (like red-light cameras and police cameras) the rest are not marked at all, and who knows what their purpose is...-Dave#2

And if someone is taking measures to hide something, shouldn't that be enough for a judge to issue a wire tap order and to allow some unmarked vans in the public street to paint the windows with lasers in order to find out what that person is hiding?

Of course it should. Anyone hiding anything is up to no good. That much is obvious.

But isn't it realistic to believe that if the window to your home is wide open and a camera in a public place has a view, you're opening up your home to the public?

If you open a window anybody that pass in front of it can see inside your home. And you can do almost nothing to avoid that (unless you proove that someone in particular is a stalker or something like that).
The difference between passing people and the cammera will be that to avoid beeing constantly watched you will need to keep that window always closed. I guess that in this case you should have the right to request to the entity that holds the cammera to redirect it so it doesnt point to your window... if not then you will need a courtain... (or a better lawyer)

But isn't it realistic to believe that if the window to your home is wide open and a camera in a public place has a view, you're opening up your home to the public?

If you are a woman and take your clothes off if front of a window and a man sees you, he is a peeping tom. If you are a man and take your clothes off in front of a window and a woman sees it you are a flasher.

wow. And that's exactly where I become clear on my views. That's too far. Like I mentioned earlier, when you use technology to make inferences about what a person has done (or may do), then you are crossing a line. That is a whole step beyond simply surveilling a public area.-Dave#2